"SQ" System has no rear component?

[Kai Winters 10+ year member]

No rear speakers here.

If people are in the back they can hear the music fine. Very often the music is very low because we are all yacking away and no need for loud music then is there?

 

[Fast1one 10+ year member]

I honestly have no idea where this is coming from. You think I have an ego? In case you haven't noticed, Im asking questions in this thread, to learn.
Go ahead and post all these threads where Im instigating trouble. Im not trying to be an *** here either, and you and I have had some good discussions, but Im not gonna sit around and let you take such a lousy shot at me personally. Again, this discussion has been going just fine until you poke your nose in and try to pretend there is a problem. The problem here is you trying to convince people there is one.

But thankyou for your opinion. I certainly Im not here to fight, I can get that from my girlfriend all I want. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Its not as apparent in this thread specifically, but I am not going to sit here and dig out examples for you...its just what I have observed man. Take it as a grain of salt //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

As a "3rd party viewer", I must say the only person with an obvious head-*** problem thus far is yourself.

Fair enough, opinions are opinions //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Its not as apparent in this thread specifically, but I am not going to sit here and dig out examples for you...its just what I have observed man. Take it as a grain of salt //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Observation noted. Thanks for the input. Now maybe this thread can veer back on topic.
If you have an issue with me other than specifically in a current thread, next time just pm me and I'll be glad to discuss it.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

LOL Come on man, its not like you even provided any real info to research, you just said if we think we can reproduce stereo in a car we are crazy. You were being vague, someone asked you to explain what you mean, you get all "Im no search engine" about it. I do appreciate you providing info here, but the flip-side is popping into a thread to provide a one-liner with no explanation really isn't helping anyone learn.

You've made some good points I'm not going to argue with you about.

The problem with the internet forum (especially this one, for some reason) is that it's highly argumentative-prone. IMHO, in a quality a discussion group (which ca.com clearly is not) seeks a common ground through exploring ideas. That means, if you want PROOF, go find it yourself. Proposing ideas for further inquiry is GOOD. You seem to think you are entitled to something. My feeling is that should be happy with with what you got. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I have better one-liners, though than those. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Here's one I stole from Rodney Dangerfield: Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

You get a live concert performance and you don't have all those studio tricks doing their thing to emphasize the multi-channel nature of the performance. Matter of fact I'd say stereo as a medium is poorly suited to handling the ambience of a live performance, where sound waves come from all sorts of directions, not two. We'd be better off with a multi-channel setup IMO but we don't have that for CD's, only DVD's and the now-obsolete Quadraphonic systems from 3 decades ago.

Amen to that! I just went to a live concert last night....Earth, Wind and Fire, actually. Lots of stuff happening in that 13 member band. I moved around front to back, left to right throughout the show and the sound stayed basically the same. It was a great space not for stereo, just like a car. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

I'm sure you've listened to some of Roger Water's recordings for both Q-Sound and quadraphonic sound. Pretty awesome stuff. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

The problem with the internet forum (especially this one, for some reason) is that it's highly argumentative-prone. IMHO, in a quality a discussion group (which ca.com clearly is not) seeks a common ground through exploring ideas. That means, if you want PROOF, go find it yourself. Proposing ideas for further inquiry is GOOD. You seem to think you are entitled to something. My feeling is that should be happy with with what you got. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

It appears you're suffering from the DIYMA elitist "I can show you the door, but you must walk through it" mentality. You're apparently missing a key aspect of quality discussion groups.....discussion. What good is a discussion if it consists of a mere suggestion of a few ideas, and then leaves the rest up to the reader? Frankly all it demonstrates to me is that the individual bringing up the points doesn't actually understand that of which they speak, and is just regurgitating something they'd read somewhere and don't have the knowledge to engage in discussion about it. That's not a discussion. A discussion requires exchange of information, ideas on opinions. Not a vague reference to a few ideas and then demand it's up to the other parties to research to support, compare and/or contrast your viewpoint.

Let us take an example in the link you previously posted. If they had followed your suggestion for what constitutes a "quality discussion group", werewolf would have simply said "The author doesn't understand the basic mechanisms of classic stereo." Why? "If you would have taken the time to research, you would already understand why." But instead, there is a wonderful, thorough discussion of the mechanics of classic stereo, contrasted against mono and other various methods, and then a discussion of ambiophonics.

In your world, that thread would have ended on page 2 instead of page 37.

[/rant]

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

That means, if you want PROOF, go find it yourself. Proposing ideas for further inquiry is GOOD. You seem to think you are entitled to something. My feeling is that should be happy with with what you got. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

If you make a statement and are asked to back it up with something, then back it up. It's obvious you came in here with what you thought to be a smart little comment. You got asked for some reasoning behind it, and then you got all defensive. It's not anyone else's job to defend your statements...it really makes you look like a tool.

 

[tcguy85 10+ year member]

If you feel the need to use rear fill, I think something is probably missing in front of you.
Without very skilled implementation....including driver placement, time arrival, and making sure you cannot locate the speakers..sound coming from behind you will probably ruin the sound coming in front of you. That is, of course, unless you sit in the front seat and look backward. Then, it would be the other way around.

Sound quality competition is all about hearing the music and NOT the speakers. All you have to do is close your eyes.

X2

x2

and x2!

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

It appears you're suffering from the DIYMA elitist "I can show you the door, but you must walk through it" mentality. You're apparently missing a key aspect of quality discussion groups.....discussion. What good is a discussion if it consists of a mere suggestion of a few ideas, and then leaves the rest up to the reader?

Suffering? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Yes. Then the reader explores them and continues it. It's not that hard. You have to understand what how crappy this method of communication/discussion really is, though. If were speaking in person, it would be 5x better.

Frankly all it demonstrates to me is that the individual bringing up the points doesn't actually understand that of which they speak, and is just regurgitating something they'd read somewhere and don't have the knowledge to engage in discussion about it. That's not a discussion. A discussion requires exchange of information, ideas on opinions. Not a vague reference to a few ideas and then demand it's up to the other parties to research to support, compare and/or contrast your viewpoint.

If I present ONE idea then that opens the door for more discovery. It's not vague to me. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif It's very clear, acutally. Are you suggesting my viewpoint me altered to match the assumed level understanding of the rest of the readers???

Let us take an example in the link you previously posted. If they had followed your suggestion for what constitutes a "quality discussion group", werewolf would have simply said "The author doesn't understand the basic mechanisms of classic stereo." Why? "If you would have taken the time to research, you would already understand why." But instead, there is a wonderful, thorough discussion of the mechanics of classic stereo, contrasted against mono and other various methods, and then a discussion of ambiophonics.

IF being the operative word, Squeak. That takes too much time and work on my part. a) i'm lazy and b) i don't care. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

If you make a statement and are asked to back it up with something, then back it up. It's obvious you came in here with what you thought to be a smart little comment. You got asked for some reasoning behind it, and then you got all defensive. It's not anyone else's job to defend your statements...it really makes you look like a tool.

I'd like to make the statement that I think trying to implement stereophonic replay in an automobile is a fruitless labor. I've come to know this via independent study and through my own experience. This then leaves the question of "to rear fill? or not to rear fill?" on the very end of a long list of questions that need to be answered with regards to optimal sound in a car.

Better? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

As a "3rd party viewer", I must say the only person with an obvious head-*** problem thus far is yourself.

Add to the discussion. We don't need a play by play, man.

 

[HowLowd 10+ year member]

if you like rear fill, run rear fill
if you dont.. dont

who cares what the salesman said

+1 for the man by the window.

personally, Im running rear fill in this car, until i get to the point o want. Im happy with my front staging, and upon completion, ive come to understand i prefe a good presence upfront with the sub in the rear ported through the rear deck, and sub rear firing. worked well in my last car and ill do the same in this one.

Its going to come down to your personal chice but i say play around with it, with a quality set up front and some cheaps in the rear,

do a week, then delete the rears for a week, if you feel like somethings missing, get a good set and replace em.

 

[Fast1one 10+ year member]

Observation noted. Thanks for the input. Now maybe this thread can veer back on topic.
If you have an issue with me other than specifically in a current thread, next time just pm me and I'll be glad to discuss it.

Next time I WILL just take it to PM, sorry for the off topic discussion....carry on //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

It appears you're suffering from the DIYMA elitist "I can show you the door, but you must walk through it" mentality. You're apparently missing a key aspect of quality discussion groups.....discussion. What good is a discussion if it consists of a mere suggestion of a few ideas, and then leaves the rest up to the reader? Frankly all it demonstrates to me is that the individual bringing up the points doesn't actually understand that of which they speak, and is just regurgitating something they'd read somewhere and don't have the knowledge to engage in discussion about it. That's not a discussion. A discussion requires exchange of information, ideas on opinions. Not a vague reference to a few ideas and then demand it's up to the other parties to research to support, compare and/or contrast your viewpoint.
Let us take an example in the link you previously posted. If they had followed your suggestion for what constitutes a "quality discussion group", werewolf would have simply said "The author doesn't understand the basic mechanisms of classic stereo." Why? "If you would have taken the time to research, you would already understand why." But instead, there is a wonderful, thorough discussion of the mechanics of classic stereo, contrasted against mono and other various methods, and then a discussion of ambiophonics.

In your world, that thread would have ended on page 2 instead of page 37.

[/rant]

Very good advice, but I think the problem is the knowledge is there for all to see if you search it. I don't think its up to the knowledgeable to explain a topic to others...unless they just completely don't understand the topic at hand...
Once everyone is on the same page, they can continue with a more advanced discussion on the topic...thats why I think it was beneficial to post links instead of trying to explain a topic to someone who doesn't know it, which could take pages...this happens a lot, which is why you end up with several pages of clutter...

Just my opinion. I agree with both of your viewpoints, there is really no right or wrong answer, I just tend to lean towards foxpro and attempt to be a little more efficient in my discussions //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Suffering? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Yes, suffering.

Yes. Then the reader explores them and continues it. It's not that hard. You have to understand what how crappy this method of communication/discussion really is, though. If were speaking in person, it would be 5x better.
If I present ONE idea then that opens the door for more discovery. It's not vague to me. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif It's very clear, acutally. Are you suggesting my viewpoint me altered to match the assumed level understanding of the rest of the readers???

And what would happen if you actually engaged in a meaningful discussion instead of making one statement and saying "you do the rest"? The reader would 1) learn from your knowledge, and 2) have to participate in further research to a) identify your statements are accurate, and b) identify more detailed counterpoints.

Which is more productive?

Honestly, I've done far more research on subjects in trying to defend my viewpoint and provide counterpoints against another individual in an actual discussion than I ever have or will when attempting to participate in the one-liner rebuttal.

IF being the operative word, Squeak. That takes too much time and work on my part. a) i'm lazy and b) i don't care. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

And what happened because of that discussion you linked to on ECA? You learned something. You now used that as a reference.

And in response, you take the elitist "It's not my responsibility to explain it to you."

Honestly, that's a bit hypocritical. You utilize the research and knowledge of others who've done exactly what you claim isn't your responsibility....participated in an actual discussion and provided detailed knowledge and explanation.

Again, you claim the landmark of a "quality" discussion group is your platform of one-liner "you do the rest" mentality. And you've yet to counter the fact that under this platform little actual discussion takes place.

Add to the discussion. We don't need a play by play, man.

There was no discussion taking place, you've essentially refused to further the discussion....what the hell do you want me to add to?

Here-in lies the problem with your method of delivery. You made a statement, required that us the reader research your viewpoint, and then when a counterargument was made (via audioholic) you essentially said "If you want to learn anymore, you need to do the research yourself".

So what else is there to discuss? Even when a rebuttal is made, you add virtually nothing further to the topic?

Glad to see your ideal exchange is working out so well, by halting virtually any meaningful discussion of the topic......... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

I don't think its up to the knowledgeable to explain a topic to others...

Are you serious?!?

That is quite easily the most ignorant statement I've ever seen or heard.